Effect of the introducer technique compared with the pull technique on the peristomal infection rate in PEG: a meta-analysis

详细信息	查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

• 作者：Paulo Moacir Oliveira Campoli ; MD ; PhD¹ ; ³ ; ; Adriano Augusto Peclat de Paula ; MD ; PhD² ; Luana Gomes Alves ; MD² ; Marilia Dalva Turchi ; MD ; PhD³
• 关键词：CENTRAL-Cochrane ; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ; EMBASE ; Excerpta Medica Database ; LILACS ; Latin American and Caribbean Centre on Health Sciences Information ; PUBMED ; Public MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine journal articles database)
• 刊名：Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
• 出版年：2012
• 期刊代码：130_00165107
• 类别：med
• 出版时间：May, 2012
• 卷：75
• 期：5
• 页码：988-996
• 文件大小：1514 K

摘要

| Figures/TablesFigures/Tables | ReferencesReferences

Background

Peristomal infection is a main complication of PEG. The pull technique appears to be associated with higher infection rates compared with the introducer technique, although published results are controversial.

Objective

To determine which technique is associated with a higher risk of infection.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting

Studies reporting rates of peristomal infection after PEG performed by either the pull or introducer technique.

Patients

This study involved 2336 patients from 6 comparative and 10 observational studies.

Intervention

Public MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine journal articles database), Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information databases and proceedings of two meetings, Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week, were searched. Both comparative and observational studies were included and analyzed separately.

Main Outcome Measurements

Effect measures from each comparative study were reported as the odds ratio (OR). The pooled effect was then calculated. The infection rate in each observational study was also calculated, and a summary effect was then determined.

Results

In comparative studies, the risk of infection was significantly higher with the pull technique (OR 13.0; 95%confidence interval [CI], 4.6-36.8; P < .0001). Similarly, observational studies also reported higher infection rates with the pull technique (10.7%; 95%CI, 4.9-21.8 with the pull technique vs 0.9%; 95%CI, 0.2-4.5 with the introducer technique).

Limitations

Few studies were available for inclusion, and there was a high risk of bias among the comparative studies.

Conclusion

The pull technique appears to be associated with a significantly higher risk of infection compared with the introducer technique.